National Geographic, which nows runs Scienceblogs.com, has put the hammer down on anonymous blogs.
Really, that whole thing was always a little sketchy. Supposedly the rationale was that these people were going to be edgy insiders revealing things too explosive for mainstream media and maybe damaging to their careers but it mostly ended up being a way to rant about politics without accountability.
Now, the drugmonkey column is actually pretty good - good enough that I read it and that's where I saw the announcement - but the paranoia has always run a little high over there. He/she thinks National Geographic wanted some über-powerful brand and nothing more, not the contributors, but the Scienceblogs.com brand was nothing special. The people were what made it successful, certainly SEED Media did little to help other than getting Chris Mims to do all of the work in the beginning.
Adam Bly worked on NG for a year to take it over, asking for first a lot of money and then a little and then none at all because he wanted it to look like an accretive acquisition to the public and for the writers at Scienceblogs.com to feel like it was a step up and they had made it to the big leagues. But National Geographic did not regard it that way, there was clearly internal dissent about taking it at all because the brand was not well regarded, outside the minds of some Scienceblogs people who truly thought no one read anyone but them.
When you buy a successful 'brand' you do not change it. Take Google buying YouTube - YouTube was successful and Google Video was not. The last thing Google wanted to do was change that because it was successful. All they had to do was monetize it. Scienceblogs was not successful in the eyes of National Geographic but they felt like they could make it so, and monetize it where SEED could not, namely by making it a science site Republicans and religious people could read, just like National Geographic itself.
While they are losing one pretty good blog, the credibility of the site goes way up when the content is more mainstream science written and by people with visible credentials. There are early adopters in any nascent medium, science blogging is still just that, and sometimes early adopters get marginalized when the market grows. National Geographic may make Scienceblogs into "The Borg" some of their contributors claimed it was just before the company went out of business but if they do, it will partially be because they require real names for real people and that earns the trust of the audience.
The other part in that will be that the National Geographic brand is real - and it is big. Few companies get to that size without knowing what they are doing.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Game Theory: When Are Groups Social? Or Insufferable?
- Ghost Light From Dead Galaxies - A Hubble Halloween
- US Wildlife Bans On GMOs And Neonics Lack Transparency And Scientific Rationale
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- No Light Dark Matter In ATLAS Search
- Sexual Fantasies: Threesomes Are Normal, Golden Showers Not So Much
- "Twelve years in a major urban public school system, and I couldn't once bring myself to eat a school..."
- "Hardly a day goes by without some creative new take on the eternal Evil White Man meme. Without..."
- "There would be no controversy if it were all balloons and ponies stories like that. But I hope..."
- "Let's talk about this disaster: I lost a course at the university where I work and became ineligible..."
- "Partisan nastiness doesn't advance dialogue. We are all in this together. You asked for solutions..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!